Horizons – Sep-Oct 2002
Perspectives
Page 9
Who’s Afraid of Pluralism?
The Bible wasn’t intended to construct a moral box for humanity. Rather, it offers the tools to make moral decisions for ourselves
Aimee Patterson is in her fourth year of a B.A. degree at William and Catherine Booth College. She is currently devoting much of her energy to a thesis on H. Richard Niebuhr, but she still finds time to watch Star Trek.
Pull quote: Biblical principles are not hard-and-fast rules but goals to be reached in our quest for moral discernment
Last March I attended a conference examining the role of higher education in moral formation. Held at the Centre for Applied Christian Ethics (CACE) at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, the three-day event featured speakers from a variety of disciplines, including human development, history, theology and philosophy. The seminars sought to illuminate the ways in which post-secondary schools can facilitate moral development without encouraging mindless conformity. A colourful palette of guests made the event of interest for anyone concerned with moral growth.
The theme that caught my attention immediately was the cultivation of a “moral imagination.” Biblical scholar Dr Joel Green of Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky, argued that Christians are wrong to use Scripture to construct a moral box for humanity. While it cannot be denied that the Bible does contain blatant “Thou shalt not” statements, and while it can offer moral direction, its intention is not to supply step-by-step instruction for every situation. We cannot determine how to proceed in a moral predicament simply by quoting one or two choice verses of Scripture. Instead of a better concordance we need a biblically-shaped imagination.
The Bible offers the tools to make moral decisions for ourselves. We uncover these tools by examining the entire biblical narrative, rather than idolizing select lists of virtues and vices. When we read this narrative and observe the sometimes contradictory actions taken by its various “heroes,” we can conclude that what we might call biblical principles are not hard-and-fast rules, but goals to be reached in our quest for moral discernment. We ask: “What is the good that both Old Testament patriarchs and New Testament apostles search after? What is the firm foundation underlying what appear to be malleable concepts of what is right? ” The “What would Jesus do?” question is useless unless we also ask where he lived, what he ate, whom he associated with, what his socio-political circumstances were. Thus, the Word of God engages us in disciplined study of Scripture, but it also demands the use of our imagination. We end up finding ourselves in the story.
Cultivating the moral imagination leads to the recognition of the call to freedom. Freedom is not a blanket term justifying everything under the sun. It is always attached to responsibility. Dr Julie Reuben, a historian from Harvard University, commented that the original meaning of freedom is a method of making judgements that can be defended in certain ways. Life in this world dictates that laws are necessary components of the human experience; however, these laws must be the outpouring of internal conviction, rather than demands to conform imposed upon us. The law is a crown, not a barrier, to freedom.
Freedom, then, is associated with responsibility and law, but also with community. Making decisions is not an individual activity. It is executed within the context of society. Not only are individuals to consider others when taking consequences into account, they are also to be informed by the examples of others. Each Sunday the congregation stares at the clergy member in the pulpit, waiting for inspired words. Similarly, we should “stare” at those around us, anticipating a moral example to evaluate and appropriate.
A question much argued throughout the conference was whether the moral life can be developed apart from Christianity or from any religious affiliation. Here arose such dirty words as pluralism, inclusiveness and tolerance. What about those who choose not to find themselves in the biblical narrative? Are they morally bankrupt? The answer is no. And yes. And maybe. Scholars disagreed as to how closely faith and morality are related. One problem is that a close alliance carries with it the danger of placing grace under human control—a salvation by works. Another problem of linking morality to religion is that it begs the question: Which religion offers the best moral footing?
I think we can learn a lesson from multi-cultural studies. The goal of reaching harmony between cultures is not achieved by homogenizing them all in a melting pot but by learning to understand their particularities. Discussions among different religious groups offer a richness of insight and moral perspective. Consensus does not involve compromise and conformity so much as dialogue and understanding. Without holding on to a particular route, it is unlikely that one will remain committed to a moral position; thus we should not abandon the Christian moral imagination. Nevertheless, when Christians come to the table we must recognize that we haven’t cornered the market on morality. Imperialistic attitudes must be discarded as we prepare both to contribute to and benefit from the conversation. Moral truth can bubble up only in free dialogue between the varieties of people that exist on this planet, just as it did between the disciplines represented at the CACE conference.
More information about the CACE conference “Exploring Moral Formation: The College Experience” can be found at
www.wheaton.edu/CACE/events/current/spring2002.htm
